On 16-06-20, 20:11, Sanjay R Mehta wrote:
> --- a/drivers/dma/ptdma/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/dma/ptdma/Makefile
> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_AMD_PTDMA) += ptdma.o
>
> -ptdma-objs := ptdma-dev.o
> +ptdma-objs := ptdma-dev.o \
> + ptdma-dmaengine.o
Single line?
> +static void pt_free_chan_resources(struct dma_chan *dma_chan)
> +{
> + struct pt_dma_chan *chan = container_of(dma_chan, struct pt_dma_chan,
> + vc.chan);
> +
> + dev_dbg(chan->pt->dev, "%s - chan=%p\n", __func__, chan);
drop the dbg artifacts here and other places in this and other patches
> +static void pt_do_cleanup(struct virt_dma_desc *vd)
> +
> +{
> + struct pt_dma_desc *desc = container_of(vd, struct pt_dma_desc, vd);
> + struct pt_device *pt = desc->pt;
> + struct pt_dma_chan *chan;
> +
> + chan = container_of(desc->vd.tx.chan, struct pt_dma_chan,
> + vc.chan);
add a to_pt_chan() macro for this?
> +static int pt_issue_next_cmd(struct pt_dma_desc *desc)
> +{
> + struct pt_passthru_engine *pt_engine;
> + struct pt_dma_cmd *cmd;
> + struct pt_device *pt;
> + struct pt_cmd *pt_cmd;
> + struct pt_cmd_queue *cmd_q;
> +
> + cmd = list_first_entry(&desc->cmdlist, struct pt_dma_cmd, entry);
> + desc->actv = 1;
active?
> +
> + dev_dbg(desc->pt->dev, "%s - tx %d, cmd=%p\n", __func__,
> + desc->vd.tx.cookie, cmd);
> +
> + pt_cmd = &cmd->pt_cmd;
> + pt = pt_cmd->pt;
> + cmd_q = &pt->cmd_q;
> + pt_engine = &pt_cmd->passthru;
> +
> + if (!pt_engine->final)
> + return -EINVAL;
what does final mean here?
> +
> + if (!pt_engine->src_dma || !pt_engine->dst_dma)
> + return -EINVAL;
what does this check do? we have a valid cmd which IIUC implies a valid
dma txn so why would one of this be invalid?
> +static struct pt_dma_desc *__pt_next_dma_desc(struct pt_dma_chan *chan)
> +{
> + /* Get the next DMA descriptor on the active list */
> + struct virt_dma_desc *vd = vchan_next_desc(&chan->vc);
> +
> + if (list_empty(&chan->vc.desc_submitted))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + vd = list_empty(&chan->vc.desc_issued) ?
> + list_first_entry(&chan->vc.desc_submitted,
> + struct virt_dma_desc, node) : NULL;
Always remember there might already be a macro, so check. In this case
use of list_first_entry_or_null() looks apt
> +static struct pt_dma_desc *pt_handle_active_desc(struct pt_dma_chan *chan,
> + struct pt_dma_desc *desc)
> +{
> + struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx_desc;
> + struct virt_dma_desc *vd;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + /* Loop over descriptors until one is found with commands */
This bit is strange, am not sure I follow. The fn name tell me it would
handle and active descriptor which is passed as an arg, so why do you
loop?
Can you explain this?
> +static void pt_issue_pending(struct dma_chan *dma_chan)
> +{
> + struct pt_dma_chan *chan = container_of(dma_chan, struct pt_dma_chan,
> + vc.chan);
> + struct pt_dma_desc *desc;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + dev_dbg(chan->pt->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->vc.lock, flags);
> +
> + desc = __pt_next_dma_desc(chan);
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chan->vc.lock, flags);
> +
> + /* If there was nothing active, start processing */
What if channel is already active and doing a transaction? This should
check it first..
> +int pt_dmaengine_register(struct pt_device *pt)
> +{
> + struct pt_dma_chan *chan;
> + struct dma_device *dma_dev = &pt->dma_dev;
> + struct dma_chan *dma_chan;
> + char *dma_cmd_cache_name;
> + char *dma_desc_cache_name;
> + int ret;
> +
> + pt->pt_dma_chan = devm_kcalloc(pt->dev, 1,
> + sizeof(*pt->pt_dma_chan),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
If n is 1, why you kcalloc, why not devm_kzalloc()?
> + if (!pt->pt_dma_chan)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + dma_cmd_cache_name = devm_kasprintf(pt->dev, GFP_KERNEL,
> + "%s-dmaengine-cmd-cache",
> + pt->name);
> + if (!dma_cmd_cache_name)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + pt->dma_cmd_cache = kmem_cache_create(dma_cmd_cache_name,
> + sizeof(struct pt_dma_cmd),
> + sizeof(void *),
> + SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
> + if (!pt->dma_cmd_cache)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + dma_desc_cache_name = devm_kasprintf(pt->dev, GFP_KERNEL,
> + "%s-dmaengine-desc-cache",
> + pt->name);
> + if (!dma_desc_cache_name) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto err_cache;
> + }
> +
> + pt->dma_desc_cache = kmem_cache_create(dma_desc_cache_name,
> + sizeof(struct pt_dma_desc),
> + sizeof(void *),
> + SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
> + if (!pt->dma_desc_cache) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto err_cache;
> + }
> +
> + dma_dev->dev = pt->dev;
> + dma_dev->src_addr_widths = PT_DMA_WIDTH(dma_get_mask(pt->dev));
> + dma_dev->dst_addr_widths = PT_DMA_WIDTH(dma_get_mask(pt->dev));
> + dma_dev->directions = DMA_MEM_TO_MEM;
> + dma_dev->residue_granularity = DMA_RESIDUE_GRANULARITY_DESCRIPTOR;
> + dma_cap_set(DMA_MEMCPY, dma_dev->cap_mask);
> + dma_cap_set(DMA_INTERRUPT, dma_dev->cap_mask);
> + dma_cap_set(DMA_PRIVATE, dma_dev->cap_mask);
Why DMA_PRIVATE if it supports only memcpy? Also have you tested this
with dmatest?
--
~Vinod
